Speeding notice - what's the next move?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
R

Richard Brookman

Guest
Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One is
the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I
was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera
van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't
prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll
over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the
road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.

There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of the
calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble for
the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of what
to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the driver - I
assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next move, guys?

What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
off my chest, and thanks for listening :)

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:57:57 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
>on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
>instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
>Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
>fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One is
>the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I
>was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera
>van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't
>prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll
>over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
>factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the
>road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
>There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of the
>calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
>something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble for
>the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of what
>to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the driver - I
>assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next move, guys?
>
>What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
>looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
>2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
>off my chest, and thanks for listening :)

Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting?


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 

For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
> factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the
> road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.

Hate to be irritating but a friend of mine had the same problem when coming
to work in the morning bemoaning the ticket for 40 in a 30 zone. I pointed
out to him that other users expect driving at the said speed along the road
as they also expect driving on the left of the road even on a deserted road.
I also pointed out that the ticket would have been the least of his worries
had he injured one of my children attempting to cross the road ( legally );
I would have had every intention of visiting him and also breaking the law
by causing his person some considerable physical damage. After that he
agreed that as we live in a society where rules cause us to live in
reasonable harmony he was in the wrong and accepted the ticket with good
grace and a much reduced lack of selfishness.

John H


 
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:06:18 +0000, Tim Hobbs wrote:

> Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting?

A meeting normal invloves at least one other, could they not verify
that the OP was present at or before 1900...

ISTR that there is a least one web site with all the "get out of jail
free" quirks of the speed camera game.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
Richard,

Whilst not condoning speeding (or any other illegal act) I think you
might find some useful information at www.pepipoo.com

Your assetion that you were only doing 35 may be correct but that is not
to say you weren't going faster before you saw the van and that was when
they zapped you.

Regards

Steve G



Richard Brookman wrote:
> Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One is
> the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I
> was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera
> van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't
> prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll
> over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
> factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the
> road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
> There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of the
> calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble for
> the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of what
> to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the driver - I
> assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next move, guys?
>
> What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> off my chest, and thanks for listening :)
>
 
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:50:28 GMT, Hirsty's wrote:

> I pointed out to him that other users expect driving at the said
> speed along the road as they also expect driving on the left of the
> road even on a deserted road. I also pointed out that the ticket
> would have been the least of his worries had he injured one of my
> children attempting to cross the road ( legally );

I agree but the authorities ought to make doubly sure that that any
evidence they produce is 100% accurate. It appears that this is not
always the case and when the details are inaccurate it wastes
everybodys time.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
In article <[email protected]>, "SteveG
<\"s.goodfellow\"@blueyonder" <"dot> says...
> Richard,
>
> Whilst not condoning speeding (or any other illegal act) I think you
> might find some useful information at www.pepipoo.com
>
> Your assetion that you were only doing 35 may be correct but that is not
> to say you weren't going faster before you saw the van and that was when
> they zapped you.
>
> Regards
>
> Steve G
>
>
>
> Richard Brookman wrote:
> > Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> > on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> > instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> > Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> > fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One is
> > the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I
> > was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera
> > van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't
> > prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll
> > over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
> > factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the village, the
> > road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
> >
> > There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of the
> > calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> > something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble for
> > the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of what
> > to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the driver - I
> > assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next move, guys?
> >
> > What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> > looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> > 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> > off my chest, and thanks for listening :)

My mother is a magistrate at a nortumberland court, and she finds its
ussually a lot easier just to admit it was you, unless you have very good
evidence that is against the case, which you don't seem to have.
> >
>
 

You could try the usual - asking to supply certificate of calibration (
sometimes they cant and they have to drop it)

Or do the double guilty - tell them you can not remember who was driving and
get someone else to plead guilty too - they cannot convict two and you will
not be guilty of withholding.

otherwise buggered really.

what ive noticed around here is the buggers move the 30 signs way out of the
villages where you would automatically begin to speed up and zap you there.



"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One
> is the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57,
> but I was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed
> the camera van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies
> and I can't prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather
> than roll over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless,
> until you factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the
> village, the road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
> There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of
> the calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble
> for the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of
> what to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the
> driver - I assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next
> move, guys?
>
> What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> off my chest, and thanks for listening :)
>
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous
>


 
Had similar problem and found www.e-database.co.uk a very useful site to get
over my problem. Hope it helps.


"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:06:18 +0000, Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
>> Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting?
>
> A meeting normal invloves at least one other, could they not verify
> that the OP was present at or before 1900...
>
> ISTR that there is a least one web site with all the "get out of jail
> free" quirks of the speed camera game.
>
> --
> Cheers [email protected]
> Dave. pam is missing e-mail
>
>
>


 
On or around Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:40:36 -0000, "Steve Cork"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Had similar problem and found www.e-database.co.uk a very useful site to get
>over my problem. Hope it helps.

not fair :)

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
On or around Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:57:57 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57, but I
>was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed the camera
>van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies and I can't
>prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather than roll
>over and play dead

If you can verify the time (have others swear to your presence 5 miles away
at 19:00) then you have a minor point. However, they have a picture of your
vehicle...

you can do the calibration thing. Evidently it's not set up accurately, or
it'd have the right time on it.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
Hi Richard,

I have a very large e-book about all this - my e-mail address is
"andrew"@preaching.co.uk take out the excalamtion marks and I will send you
the e-book straigh tback via e-mail.

A


"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One
> is the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57,
> but I was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed
> the camera van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies
> and I can't prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather
> than roll over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless,
> until you factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the
> village, the road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
> There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of
> the calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble
> for the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of
> what to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the
> driver - I assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next
> move, guys?
>
> What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> off my chest, and thanks for listening :)
>
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous
>


 

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Going out to a meeting with some bruvvas last week, I spotted a camera van
> on the exit to a village, still in the 30 limit. I checked my speedo the
> instant I saw the van and it was reading 35mph. Today I got the Notice of
> Intended Prosecution, saying that I had been clocked at 40. Now, I'm a
> fairly law-abiding chap, but there's two things wrong on the Notice. One
> is the speed, the other is the time - apparently I was clocked at 18:57,
> but I was actually in my meeting about 5 miles away at 19:00 - I passed
> the camera van at about 18:45. I know these are very minor discrepancies
> and I can't prove either of them, but it's made me want to fight it rather
> than roll over and play dead. For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless,
> until you factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the
> village, the road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any case.
>
> There was some discussion here a while back about requesting evidence of
> the calibration of the device within 14 days of the alleged offence (or
> something like), with the implication that this proves too much trouble
> for the "partnership" and they might let it drop. Can anyone remind me of
> what to do? My next move is to send off the form admitting I was the
> driver - I assume this doesn't admit guilt, or does it? What's my next
> move, guys?
>
> What's more annoying is that my last ticket was in May 2000, and I was
> looking forward to having a clean licence again. Apart from the Gatso in
> 2000, my licence had been clean for 25 years. No wonder we hate 'em. Now
> off my chest, and thanks for listening :)
>
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous
>
Apparently, there's a way round this due to the Police And Criminal Evidence
act (PACE). What you allegedly do is as follows:-

1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are
signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been cautioned
as is required by law. You are effectively signing both an admission to
guilt and giving up your statutory right to a caution.
2. Write a letter that complies with your legal obligation, I.E. who was
driving and confirmation of the registration.
3. Write the following on the letter. "I am complying with the legal
obligation to inform you who was driving the vehicle at the stated time and
date, but please note this letter is not an admission of guilt and cannot be
used in a court as evidence as I have not been cautioned as is required by
uk law and PACE."

It is alleged that they cannot prosecute you as they haven't read you your
rights and by not signing their pre-printed you have not signed away that
right either. A policeman cannot come to your door and read you your rights
unless he has evidence to do so, and the civillian firm undertaking the
camera van operations cannot bring the legal side against you as they do not
hold any warrants to do so.
This all came from a thread on www.BMWland.co.uk recently, search there for
more info.
Badger.


 
So Tim Hobbs was, like

> <snip>
>
> Is there CCTV with a timestamp at the place you had your meeting?

Unfortunately not :-(

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
So Hirsty's was, like

> For one thing, 40 in a 30 sounds reckless, until you
>> factor in that I was the only car on the road, I had left the
>> village, the road was wide and clear, and I was only doing 35 in any
>> case.
>
> Hate to be irritating but a friend of mine had the same problem when
> coming to work in the morning bemoaning the ticket for 40 in a 30
> zone. I pointed out to him that other users expect driving at the
> said speed along the road as they also expect driving on the left of
> the road even on a deserted road. I also pointed out that the ticket
> would have been the least of his worries had he injured one of my
> children attempting to cross the road ( legally ); I would have had
> every intention of visiting him and also breaking the law by causing
> his person some considerable physical damage. After that he agreed
> that as we live in a society where rules cause us to live in
> reasonable harmony he was in the wrong and accepted the ticket with
> good grace and a much reduced lack of selfishness.
>
> John H

Don't quite know what you are accusing me of here. The place I was clocked
is well outside the village, with no children OAPs or even other cars in
sight - apart from the camera van. The only reason it is a 30 limit is that
the signs are posted well outside the village to slow cars coming in from
the other direction (quite rightly) - there was no *safety* reason for the
limit to be there going out of the village. But many people do start to
accelerate there (village hazards passed, clear road ahead) and it seems a
great place to catch a few ordinary drivers on a technicality. As far as
children are concerned, I have two of my own and I'm one of those who
support rigidly enforced 20mph limits outside schools. But I hope that if
someone injured them while they were crossing the road, I would allow the
law to take its course rather than going round and breaking their legs, as
you seem to imply. What good would that do? Your tone is that of the
vigilante and the bully.

> I would have had
> every intention of visiting him and also breaking the law by causing
> his person some considerable physical damage.

We're missing the point here. I was a couple of mph over the limit, and I
will hold my hands up to that, but the speed and time on the notice are
wrong, and I was asking for advice as to what I could do about it. You seem
to set great store by playing by the rules - but it works both ways. I am
not going to hold my hands up to something I did not do.

Come to see me and drive round with me for the day - I think you will find I
am neither selfish nor reckless.

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
So SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" < was, like

> Richard,
>
> Whilst not condoning speeding (or any other illegal act) I think you
> might find some useful information at www.pepipoo.com

Cheers - I'll have a look.
--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
So Austin Shackles was, like

> On or around Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:40:36 -0000, "Steve Cork"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Had similar problem and found www.e-database.co.uk a very useful
>> site to get over my problem. Hope it helps.
>
> not fair :)

Seen it already. :)

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
So [email protected] was, like

> My mother is a magistrate at a nortumberland court, and she finds its
> ussually a lot easier just to admit it was you, unless you have very
> good evidence that is against the case, which you don't seem to have.

I admit it was me, and I admit I was about 5mph over the limit. No problem
there. What I would argue (to a magistrate or anyone else) is that the
speed and the time of the "offence" were actually wrong. Would your mother
approve of this in her court? If so, I'm glad I don't live in
Northumberland.

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
So Andrew Renshaw was, like

> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a very large e-book about all this - my e-mail address is
> "andrew"@preaching.co.uk take out the excalamtion marks and I will
> send you the e-book straigh tback via e-mail.
>
> A
>
Thanks - I will.

--

Rich

Pas d'elle yeux Rhone que nous


 
On or around Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:43:14 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>1. DO NOT fill in their pre-printed paperwork, if you sign it you are
>signing a disclaimer to PACE, and the fact that you haven't been cautioned
>as is required by law. You are effectively signing both an admission to
>guilt and giving up your statutory right to a caution.

does the paperwork say that on it, in words that the ordinary bod can
understand?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sierra Charlie
Which one next?
Replies
19
Views
1K
Sierra Charlie
Sierra Charlie
2008Freelander
New member New Zealand 2008 Freelander next to my 1982 G-Wagon LWB
Replies
6
Views
507
2008Freelander
2008Freelander
E
Td5: Shaking engine at short notice at a standstill directly after releasing the clutch
Replies
1
Views
304
miktdish
miktdish
Flossie
Lost me clutch, thoughts? Found the fault with a pic.
Replies
19
Views
2K
KISSMYAURA
KISSMYAURA
J
Puma 2.4 (08) Service Kit Recommendations
Replies
7
Views
471
Hellsteeth
Hellsteeth
Back
Top